- Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 20, 2018 · IPR2018-00476 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–27 because Cheyer was not shown reasonably likely to qualify as publicly accessible prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“trial is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides in relevant part: “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Section 42.71(c), in turn, references 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides a request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified (id.).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot reached
“how to retrieve Cheyer, included in Moran’s footnote citation, did not persuade us that Cheyer was publicly accessible (id. at 15; see Pet. 3)). Importantly, we note Petitioner has not shown the link provided in the footnote worked, or that the link, which is to a “Bibliography” page (see Ex. 1029), provided Cheyer’s paper or a publicly accessible link to Cheyer’s paper. In particular, Petitioner does not provide a copy of this Bibliography page to show what actually was on this page and how or if an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to access Cheyer’s paper from the Bibliography page. In our Decision, we noted Petitioner failed to provide testimonial or other evidence that the link provided in the article actually worked at the relevant time period, what content was included at the linked website, how one would find Cheyer after selecting the link, or which version of Cheyer allegedly was accessible via the link (Dec. 15). We also explained that this latter showing is of special importance here because Petitioner acknowledges that there were several different versions of Cheyer (id. at 12 (citing Pet. 3)).” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“professional computer scientist or engineer directed to find an article on a section of a website would have been unable to do so with reasonable diligence” (id. at 7–8). Petitioner’s argument fails for several reasons. First, it is a new argument not appropriately raised on rehearing. Second, Petitioner identifies no support in the record for the assertion that Cheyer was actually available (see Ex. 2001 and 2002) or that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to find Cheyer, only Petitioner’s speculation.2 Finally, this argument overlooks that the burden is on Petitioner, not the Board, to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this issue.” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,757,718 - Abs Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2018 · IPR2017-02163 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ABS Global’s rehearing request, leaving in place its denial of institution because the Petition did not show that Weigl teaches the claimed focusing regions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD In a request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Further, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“our Decision Denying Institution (Paper 11, “Decision” or “Dec.”). In that Decision, we concluded that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that any of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,311,476 B2 (“the ’476 patent”) are unpatentable on any of the asserted grounds. See Dec. 22–27. Petitioner requests rehearing, arguing that we misapprehended or overlooked disclosures in Weigl,1 which was the primary reference Petitioner relied on in the asserted grounds. See Req. Reh’g 1. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“helpful context, but in analyzing whether a petitioner has shown that the cited reference teaches a particular limitation, we look primarily to the section of the petition presenting arguments regarding that limitation. This flows from “the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim,’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)), as well as the requirement that “the Board must base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It would . . . not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory. . . .”). Here, the Request does not point to, and we do not find, any discussion of a constant-depth configuration in Weigl, in the Petition’s arguments regarding the “primary focusing region” and “secondary focusing region” limitations. See Pet. 39–44. Instead, as noted above, the Petition’s annotated drawings illustrating its contentions regarding these limitations show channel depth increasing, and the center fluid maintaining its dimensions as it flows downstream. The Request also argues that, leaving aside the constant-depth configuration, even a channel with increased depth would still serve to accelerate and narrow the center fluid. Req. 7–10. But here again, Petitioner did not present any such argument in the portion of its Petition arguing the “primary focusing region” and “secondary focusing region” limitations. See Pet. 39–44. The Request points to the summary of Weigl in the “Background of the Technology” section of the Petition. Req. 7–10 (citing Pet. 10–11). As such, we are not persuaded that our Decision overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments regarding the “primary focusing region” and “secondary focusing region” limitations.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,311,476 - Becton, Dickinson And Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01588 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 12, 13, 20–23, and 29 not shown unpatentable under any of four § 103 combinations; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Because the term “means” is not used, there is a presumption that the limitation is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6, and Petitioner has not overcome this presumption. See Williamson, LLC, 792 F.3d at 1349 (explaining that the presumption is overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function’”) (internal citation omitted). The claims do not simply recite a “needle protective device,” without more, but explicitly require that the “needle protective device [be] positioned proximally of the valve and at least in part around the needle and distal of a proximal end of the second hub in a ready position and configured to prevent unintended needle sticks in a protective position.” Ex. 1001, 13:58– 61 (emphasis added to structural limitations of claim 12); see also id. at 14:51–55 (reciting similar structure in independent claim 23). Petitioner fails to address these structural limitations in its proposed claim construction, instead focusing only on the three words “needle protective device.” See Pet. 11–15. Moreover, Petitioner’s proposed construction would seemingly render superfluous several of these other claimed structural features. As argued by Patent Owner, we determine that the needle protective device limitation recites sufficient structure. Mr. Meyst explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that the claimed ‘needle protective device’ refers to the class of structures included in safety IV catheters that prevent unintended needle-sticks by covering (i.e., protecting or guarding) the needle tip.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56 (citing Ex. 2014, which is cited in the ’735 patent). We find Mr. Meyst’s testimony persuasive.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of the claimed limitation. Here, the claims require the “arm” to extend distally of the third hub. Ex. 1001, 13:34–14:59. “[I]n determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.” See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In consulting general dictionary definitions, including that submitted by Petitioner (Ex. 1008), we find “arm” to be defined as: “any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph” (www.dictionary.com (last visited Nov. 13, 2017) (emphasis added)); “[a] part attached to or projecting from something” (Ex. 1008); “a long thin piece that is connected to the main part of a machine, structure, etc., and that looks or moves like a human arm” (www.learnersdictionary.com (last visited Nov. 13, 2017) (emphases added)). We also consult the prosecution history of record. In an amendment dated February 7, 2013, the applicant asserted that “[t]he scope of independent claims [1 and 23] can be found in FIGs. 13 and 14 of the instant application and corresponding written description.” Ex. 1010, 10. We now review the Specification, namely, Figures 13 and 14 and their accompanying description. We find that these figures depict an “arm” extending distally of a “third hub,” and to illustrate this structure, we reproduce Figure 13 of the ’247 patent, below: The ’247 patent describes: The third housing 204 incorporates a pair of arms 210 each comprising a hook 212. The two hooks 212 are configured to engage the two bumps 36 to retain the third housing 204 to the catheter hub 14 in a ready to use position. The two arms 210 are preferably flexible to provide a gripping force against the two bumps 36, which is higher than the frictional force to withdraw the needle through the tip protector 202, hemostatic valve 46, and catheter 12. Alternatively the two arms 210 can be biased radially outward to increase the gripping force. Further, the two arms can be biased inwardly against the needle shaft to decrease the gripping force after the needle is withdrawn proximal of the arms 210. Ex. 1001, 11:33–45 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner disputes our initial determination of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), and we see no reason to revisit it here. See, generally, PO Resp.; see also, generally, Pet. Reply. Accordingly, and as explained in our Decision to Institute, we determine that a POSITA would be either a medical practitioner (e.g., a nurse or doctor) having at least some experience with vascular catheter devices, or a person with a technical degree (e.g., associate’s degree in engineering or physics) and having at least some experience with vascular catheter devices. Paper 8, 17–18.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Having considered Callaway in its entirety, and after weighing the competing testimony of Mr. Griffis and Mr. Meyst, we agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Callaway’s “third hub” 21 would do “nothing more than hold the spring clip in place until the needle is withdrawn,” and that the “only embodiment in which the inner catheter hub (21) potentially adds any needle protection is in the Critikon version” (PO Resp. 35), which does not integrate Woehr-630’s safety clip (Ex. 1004 ¶ 62), and which Petitioner does not rely on (see Pet. 26–27). Accordingly, because Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Callaway teaches Woehr-630’s spring clip retained in hub 21 after the needle is withdrawn, Petitioner has not shown that claims 12, 13, 20–23, and 29 are unpatentable over Woehr, Callaway, and Sutton.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 8,460,247 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,460,247 - Wockhardt Bio AG v. Janssen Oncology, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 3, 2018 · IPR2016-01582 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter in its decision holding claims 1–20 unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING In pertinent part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner now presents a new argument that we misapprehended the teachings of the prior art with respect to claims 4, 11, 19, and 20. Req. 12–14. Patent Owner, however, does not point out where this matter was previously raised. Because Patent Owner has not previously raised any of its arguments presented in the Request, we are not permitted to consider its arguments now. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, we did not overlook Patent Owner’s arguments regarding these claims; rather, we considered and adopted Petitioner’s arguments regarding these claims. Dec. 45; cf. Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motive Power, Inc., 636 F. App’x 575 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential). Patent Owner’s failure to argue specifically against these claims during trial does not permit Patent Owner to now present arguments in this regard.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In our Final Written Decision, in connection with our assessment of motivation to combine Sartor with Gerber and O’Donnell, we addressed the disputed portion of Dr. Godley’s testimony directly. Dec. 26 (“Fourth, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s expert agrees that prednisone was not known to have anti-cancer treatment effects in prostate cancer patients.”) There, we agreed with Petitioner that Dr. Godley’s interpretation of Sartor was “consistent with Petitioner’s position regarding Sartor, i.e., that prednisone has its own anti-cancer effect.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 2162, 61:15–62:17). Patent Owner’s disagreement with our analysis is not a proper basis for a rehearing request. Regarding the Board’s consideration of Sartor’s credibility, we evaluated the evidence and testimony before us to conclude that, despite the fact that Sartor was a chart review, it is a “peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal” and its format did not undercut its teachings. Dec. 24. Regarding the Board’s use of the word “palliative,” we disagree that such use constitutes a new theory advanced by the Board. Req. 7–8. Rather, we used the term “palliative” three times in the Final Written Decision—once to accurately quote the language used by Dr. Godley in his Declaration (Dec. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116)), once to accurately quote Dr. Godley’s testimony (Dec. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2162, 66:1–10, 66:17–67:1), and once in our discussion of claim construction (Dec. 33). None of these instances advances a new theory. Although we noted that Dr. Godley stated that prednisone could be prescribed for palliative treatment in reconciling that statement with our claim construction (id. at 26–27), we relied on Petitioner’s arguments in chief regarding reasons to combine Gerber, O’Donnell, and Sartor in reaching our ultimate determination of unpatentability. Id. at 11–13.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,822,438 - Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. v. Pkoh Nyc, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01327 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 10–13, 20–22, 24, 26, 28–32, and 35–38 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable over Cho.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Goldman, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the bottle/container field as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’036 patent “would have a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering and at least one or two years’ experience developing container technology.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 4. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and based on the final record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The Specification of the ’036 patent describes “[t]he elastomeric material is . . . of an appropriate durometer, such as 40 Shore A, to make the squeeze bulb 200 substantially deformable yet resilient,” and the elastomeric material is preferably silicone. Ex. 1001, 2:54–63. Only the claimed wall portion of the receptacle is claimed to be “resiliently deformable.” Id. at 5:9–10. Nothing in the claim, however, precludes or requires any other portion of the receptacle (comprised of elastomeric material) from also being resiliently deformable. Id. at 4:47–48. Notably, the receptacle is claimed to be “flexible and resilient.” Id. Although the “flexible and resilient” receptacle and its wall being “resiliently deformable” are not necessarily identical, this distinction appears to be minor considering the written description of the ’036 patent. Based on the foregoing, we give each of these claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person or ordinary skill in the art. The surrounding claim language for each claim limitation focuses the scope of these terms such that any interpretation we could provide would not be as helpful in understanding the terms as the surrounding claim language. We determine that no terms require express construction for the purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“6 In our decision, we give little weight to Petitioner’s evidence of “scores of popular baby bottles currently on the market,” because the design of these new bottles does not indicate the state of the art at the time the ’036 patent was filed. Further, Petitioner has failed to provide any corroborating testimony related to these new bottles—recent advertisements do not convince us of what a person of skill in the art would have considered at the time of filing. See Pet. Reply 11 (emphasis added) (citing Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). We likewise give little weight to Petitioner’s uncorroborated article (Ex. 1026) from Wikipedia concerning “Baby bottle.” The record before us does not establish the origin and scientific basis for this evidence, and thus, we weigh Mr. Goldman’s testimony (Ex. 1021 ¶ 13) based on this evidence in a similar manner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763 (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data.”). This sentence, standing alone, supports Mr. Fletcher’s conclusion that “an elastomeric, flexible silicone” could be used in the body of Cho’s bottle. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 30. Further, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments, supported by the testimony of Mr. Fletcher, that “silicone is primarily known for its elastic properties, and has been widely used in medical applications, including implants and storage containers, due to its chemical inertness, high heat resistance, flexibility and resistance for at least 60 years.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 34). Petitioner also supports its argument as to the suitability of silicone in consumer products, including in baby bottles, with a 1991 New York Times article that explains the elastomeric properties of silicone. Pet. 12; Ex. 1018, 2 (describing “rubbery silicone”), id. at 3 (“When baby gets a bottle these days, the nipple is a rubbery version of silicone.”). The fact that silicone could also possess other properties, or hardness, does not dissuade us from the determination that Cho, as a whole, teaches using a soft, resilient silicone in the body of the bottle.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“At the outset, Mueller is analogous art and Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary flip the analysis from focusing on the problem faced by the inventor of the ’036 patent to the “specific problem(s) found in Cho’s baby bottle.” First, Cho and Mueller are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention—dispensing containers—as admitted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 36. We need not address the second portion of the analogous art test, which focuses on whether the prior art “is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We do note, however, that the parties have both misapplied this second portion of the analysis. This analysis is focused on the problem faced by the inventor of the ’036 patent, not necessarily the problems addressed in the prior art references. Because neither party sufficiently addresses the problems faced by the inventor of the ’036 patent, and because Mueller and Cho are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, we need not address the second portion of the analogous art test.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 7,959,036 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,959,036 - Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,407,213 - Intel Corporation v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 27, 2018 · IPR2018-00661 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Intel’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–9 and 17–22 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on its asserted grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“procedural rights. Petitioner had several options available to address the claim construction position set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. For example, Petitioner could have sought leave to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response . . . .”). But Petitioner did not seek our permission to file such a reply. Petitioner also was entitled to file a request for rehearing to identify any matter we misapprehended or overlooked when construing the challenged claims. See 37 § C.F.R. 42.71(d). Although Petitioner did submit a request for rehearing, it does not assert in its request that there is any error in the claim construction set forth in our Decision. See Req. Reh’g. And while Petitioner had several options available to respond to Patent Owner’s claim construction, Petitioner was not entitled to submit claim construction briefing after the Decision Denying Institution had been entered. Accordingly, we discern no violation of procedural rights in our denial of such briefing. See Ex. 1014.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“We are also not persuaded of any error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing independent claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the asserted Cederbaum-Lee combination. See Dec. 13–16. In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we overlooked evidence that AAPA from the ’950 patent discloses performing the first three steps of claims 1 and 17 in sequential order. Req. Reh’g 6–9. However, Petitioner did not set forth any challenge to claims 1 and 17 in its Petition based on AAPA, but rather only challenged these claims based on the Cederbaum–Lee combination. See Paper 2, 6, 24–28. A petition must include the specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2); see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct 1348, 1355 (2018) (explaining that it is the petitioner that gets to define the contours of the proceeding by describing each claim challenged and the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based). Petitioner acknowledges “it did not brief how the AAPA discloses how the AAPA discloses this claim construction in its petition.” Req. Reh’g 6. Because such a challenge was not presented in the Petition, it could not have been overlooked in our Decision.1” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing independent claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the asserted Cederbaum-Lee combination. See Dec. 13–16. In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we overlooked evidence that AAPA from the ’950 patent discloses performing the first three steps of claims 1 and 17 in sequential order. Req. Reh’g 6–9. However, Petitioner did not set forth any challenge to claims 1 and 17 in its Petition based on AAPA, but rather only challenged these claims based on the Cederbaum–Lee combination. See Paper 2, 6, 24–28. A petition must include the specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2); see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct 1348, 1355 (2018) (explaining that it is the petitioner that gets to define the contours of the proceeding by describing each claim challenged and the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based). Petitioner acknowledges “it did not brief how the AAPA discloses how the AAPA discloses this claim construction in its petition.” Req. Reh’g 6. Because such a challenge was not presented in the Petition, it could not have been overlooked in our Decision.1 We conclude that Petitioner has not identified any matter that we misapprehended or overlooked, much less in a manner that constitutes an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,709,950 - Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105
Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixedClaim constructioncites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,174,944 - Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Nov 9, 2018 · IPR2018-00708 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of claims 9–13 and 22–30 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“SCC-700 and Mullen teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Pet. 35–54. Petitioner has also provided a reason with a rational underpinning for combining Mullen with SCC-700. Id. at 43–44. Thus, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 9 would have been obvious over the combination of SCC-700 and Mullen.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Institution, our determination that Mullen is nonanalogous art was based on defining the relevant problem as “guitar effects pedal mounting.” Dec. 20. Notwithstanding, Petitioner does present some evidence that a problem addressed by Mullen—namely, providing wiring channel space under shelf parts—is reasonably pertinent to a problem recognized in the ’023 patent— namely, providing an area for cable routing and placement in a pedal effects mounting board.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we determine that SCC-700 qualifies as prior art under § 102(b) based on Petitioner’s evidence of public dissemination of SCC-700 during the 1980s. See Pet. 20–23. The public dissemination of SCC-700 occurred more than one year before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is September 7, 1999. Ex. 1001, [60].” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,459,023 - Fanduel, Inc. / Draftkings, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 8, 2018 · IPR2017-01333 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Carter and Barton; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over Carter, Barton, and Walker. Claims 1–3 and 6 were not shown unpatentable over Carter and Martin.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“It “remains true in construing patent claims before the PTO” that “the prosecution history . . . serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction.” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review,” such as the present inter partes review. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Upon our review of the entire record, we agree with the construction of “selectable betting parameter” previously provided by the Board, during ex parte prosecution of the ’952 patent, as set forth above. Therefore, for the reasons provided in that previous Board decision, none of which are disputed here, we apply that construction here. 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner
“However, the Federal Circuit has “cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find no such clear disclaimer in the ’952 patent specification that would require Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation of the “corresponding” claim term. In particular, while any given location in the cited example from the ’952 patent corresponds to one value of the parameter so the location “determines the bet input” (Ex. 1001, 2:20–22), there is no clear disclosure that other locations may not correspond to that same parameter. It is only in one “example” that each different location “corresponds to a different roulette number.” Id. at 2:22–24 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’952 patent disclosure does not clearly disclaim multiple different locations each corresponding to the same bet input (number or color). See id. at 2:12–31.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“After full consideration of the foregoing arguments, we conclude Patent Owner’s analysis of the scope of the claim limitation at issue is vague and confusing. That claim limitation is: the first and second selectable betting parameters are different such that selecting one would cause a different result for the bet than selecting the other. Ex. 1001, 35:23–28. Such language, on its own, presents a straight-forward claim requirement. Patent Owner’s overlying varnish suggesting that the claim requires a relationship between the first and second parameters, making them “comparable variables,” is not supported by the claim language at issue, and confuses Patent Owner’s analysis of the prior art at issue. We reject Patent Owner’s implicit claim construction of this claim limitation and determine no explicit claim construction of this limitation is needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record. 4. Remaining Claim Terms The parties do not offer any further explicit claim constructions. We determine no further explicit claim constructions are needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reference to video game experience, as opposed to some other computer gaming experience, is not required to achieve ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’952 patent. The ’952 patent is concerned principally with implementing different gaming rules via computer hardware and software as a mobile gaming device moves between jurisdictions; the specific technical implementation of presenting the game on a computer screen is only a secondary consideration. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract. However, even if we were to accept Petitioner’s position on this point, it would not affect the bases for our decision set forth below. We agree with Petitioner that ordinary skill here requires gaming experience, and does not encompass telecommunications experience without gaming experience. While wireless communication and location tracking are components of the ’952 patent’s claimed invention, the specifics of how such communication and tracking occur is only a secondary consideration. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:51–2:11, 7:48–8:12. However, even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s position on this point, it would not affect the bases for our decision set forth below. We determine a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’952 patent would have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a similar field. Such a person, further, would have at least about two years of experience designing and developing computer hardware and software to be used for playing games.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,306,952 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,306,952
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.